AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.—The present writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 8.2.1993 passed by the Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, whereby respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated without back-wages. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the Labour Court allowed the reference on the ground that the workman was appointed against reserved post of scheduled caste and the post was lying vacant.
A perusal of the appointment letter would go on show that workman was appointed as a Driver vide letter dated 19.1.1990 and as per condition, he will be on probation for a period of one year which can be further extended upto six months. Clause (vi) of the appointment letter reads as under:--
You will be on probation period for one year which may be further extended upto six months. During the period of probation or extension thereof your services can be terminated without notice.
The services of respondent No. 2 were terminated on 30.5.1990 in terms of the condition mentioned in the appointment letter dated 19.1.1990. The workman served a demand notice dated 6.6.1990 upon the petitioner questioning the termination of his services taking the plea that he was never issued any charge-sheet nor any inquiry was held. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, The defence taken was that the workman was on probation period for one year which may be further extended upto six months and during the period of probation or extension thereof, services can be terminated without notice as per clause (vi) of the appointment letter reproduced above. As noticed above, the Labour Court granted the necessary relief on the basis of instructions dated 16.2.1996.
Vide order dated 26.4.1993, the writ petition was admitted and operation of the impugned order was stayed.
This Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction when it came to conclusion that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been violated and the termination of the workman as noticed above was as per the terms of the contract, inter se parties, during his probation period. It is settled principle of law that the services of the probationer can be dispensed with, without any notice during the tenure of probation. The services were dispensed with as per the terms of contract between the parties, and there is no case of retrenchment in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. Award dated 8.2.1993 is quashed.